European Union

Length of video : 167'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.5Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, register for a free FT account here and then sign up here.

It takes a lot to shock people who work with migrants in north Africa, but revelations of active slave markets in Libya managed it.

Read more

REPORT on the 2016 Commission Report on Kosovo
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Ulrike Lunacek

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

REPORT on the 2016 Commission Report on Serbia
Committee on Foreign Affairs
David McAllister

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Last month the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued two judgments that led the mainstream media to proclaim that “employers can ban headscarves”.

The headlines were overly simplistic. Workplace policies requiring staff not to wear any clothing or symbol of a religious, political or philosophical nature are allowed, but must meet a set of criteria, and only national courts can decide whether these are met. What is of great concern from the point of view of human rights is the guidance that the ECJ gave to national courts to make these decisions.

In the first case, Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions NV, the ECJ ruled that it is the Belgian court that referred the case must decide whether it had been legitimate to dismiss the employee, Samira Achbita. She had not complied with a demand from her employer, security company G4S, to work without a headscarf. The company alleged that she had been informed of its policy requiring ‘neutral’ clothing from the beginning of her employment.

The ECJ’s guidance to the national court is very troubling. It suggested that a company’s objective of presenting a ‘neutral’ face to the public can be used to justify restricting an employee’s freedom of religion or belief, and that this policy’s negative impact on employees’ rights can be acceptable as long as it applies only to staff who work directly with the public.

The problem here is that under international human rights conventions, which all European Union member states have signed up to, a desire for neutrality is not acceptable as a justification for restricting the right to freedom of religion.

“Is it not important for young people of all identities and faiths to see people like themselves as role models in visible positions in society?”

In our diverse and cosmopolitan societies, who decides what is neutral and what is not? Could the company have considered an alternative form of neutrality that would comply with human rights – a policy where all displays of religious and cultural identity, and none, are welcome? If the policy is to exclude entire sectors of society from a range of jobs, doesn’t it become the opposite of neutrality? Some customers might think so, if they knew about the policy. But the ECJ was concerned only with the outward image of the company: excluding people is allowed, as long as this exclusion is hidden from sight.

By arguing that G4S’s policy may be acceptable because it applies only to public-facing staff, the ECJ appears to be saying that it is acceptable to limit employment and career options for a significant sector of our societies – particularly Muslims, Sikhs and Jews. Muslim women in particular already face significant discrimination in access to employment.

On this point, the answer of the court’s Advocate-General (whose opinion formed the basis of the Achbita judgment) is that people can simply choose not to wear religious clothing to work. Samira Achbita, she argues, demonstrates this because she “opted” not to wear a headscarf when she started work at G4S. This flies in the face of decades of human rights case law, which requires freedom of religion or belief to be protected, including its manifestation in public. It also fails to take account of the ‒ sometimes profound ‒ changes in religious belief and practice that people can undergo during their lifetimes.

Achbita herself refuted the idea of wearing a headscarf being optional through her actions – she chose to lose her job rather than the headscarf (as did Asma Bougnaoui in the second ECJ case, Bougnaoui v Micropole S.A., where the Court ruled that a French company was wrong to require an employee not to wear her headscarf on the grounds that it had made a customer feel uncomfortable). This is a choice that non-religious people, or people who do not feel their faith requires religious clothing, do not have to make.

“It is deeply troubling that the proposed solution to the neutrality ‘problem’ is to make diversity invisible”

Crucially, it is fair to ask whether calls for neutrality might simply mask intolerance of Muslims and other minorities – by customers or employers. The ECJ must not be blind to the rising tide of discrimination against Muslims in Europe and elsewhere, with people caught in an echo chamber of hate, between the outbursts and discriminatory executive orders of US President Donald Trump on one side of the Atlantic, and anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim politicians and commentators on the other.

The problem is multiplied for women from minorities, who are subject to criticism and regulation of what they wear and how they look. The furore over the clothing choices of Muslim women – be they headscarves, hijabs, full-face veils or burkinis – has been fuelled by misogynistic and xenophobic stereotypes.

Finally, it is deeply troubling that the proposed solution to the neutrality ‘problem’ is to make diversity invisible. Companies have been told that they cannot dismiss an employee based on the negative reaction of a customer, but all they need to do to avoid that situation is to bring in a blanket policy allowing them to consign all crosses, headscarves, kippahs and turbans to the back office – or not to offer the wearers a job in the first place. National courts can declare such policies discriminatory, but the ECJ’s guidance in the Achbita judgment does not encourage them in that direction.

Is it not important for young people of all identities, convictions and faiths to see people like themselves as role models in visible positions in society?

The EU proclaims pluralism to be one of its founding values in its treaties – but we have a right to question the message this particular judgment sends about the many identities that make up our continent.

IMAGE CREDIT: Ruud Morijn/Bigstock

The post Headscarf bans in the workplace: neutrality at any price? appeared first on Europe’s World.

General : One in every three girls in developing countries is married before turning 18, and one in nine before 15. Child marriages limit future prospects as children are usually forced to drop out of school. Girls also face dangerous complications from pregnancy and childbirth, the leading causes of death among adolescent girls in developing countries. They are also at great risk from suffering abuse. On 11 April Parliament's women's rights and human rights subcommittee discussed the issue with experts.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

General : One in every three girls in developing countries is married before turning 18, and one in nine before 15. Child marriages limit future prospects as children are usually forced to drop out of school. Girls also face dangerous complications from pregnancy and childbirth, the leading causes of death among adolescent girls in developing countries. They are also at great risk from suffering abuse. On 11 April Parliament's women's rights and human rights subcommittee discussed the issue with experts.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

On 12 April 2017, EU ambassadors agreed the Council's negotiating stance on macro-financial assistance for the Republic of Moldova.

Up to €100 million is proposed in EU assistance, of which €60 million in loans and €40 million in the form of grants. It would supplement resources provided by the IMF and other multilateral institutions.

The assistance would be aimed at supporting the country's economic stabilisation and structural reform agenda, helping to cover its external financing needs over the coming two years.

Ambassadors asked the presidency to start talks on the proposed decision with the European Parliament, as soon as the Parliament has agreed its own stance.

The Republic of Moldova's economy was affected by political instability during the period between elections in November 2014 and January 2016. It has also been affected by a banking fraud scandal, weak economic activity and import bans imposed by Russia. Since early 2016, the authorities have adopted a number of reforms, but need to undertake further efforts in implementing them, whilst those responsible for banking frauds need to be brought to justice. Reforms in the financial sector and in the management of public finances have been undertaken in the framework of negotiations on an IMF programme.

In July 2016 the Moldovan authorities and the IMF agreed a three-year extended credit facility and extended fund facility arrangement for $178.7 million. The Republic of Moldova requested complementary assistance from the EU in August 2015 and renewed that request in March 2016.

The EU assistance would be subject to a memorandum of understanding (MOU), including precise and specific conditions, to be agreed by the Republic of Moldova with the Commission.

A precondition would be that the Republic of Moldova respects effective democratic mechanisms, including a multi-party parliamentary system. It would have to respect the rule of law and guarantee respect for human rights. Objectives also include the efficiency, transparency and accountability of public finance management, an effective prevention of corruption and money laundering, and financial sector governance and supervision.

The Commission and the European External Action Service would regularly monitor the fulfilment of these preconditions and objectives.

The decision requires a qualified majority within the Council, in agreement with the Parliament. The legal basis is article 212 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Length of video : 116'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

DRAFT OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a Union regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering, technical assistance and transit of dual-use items (recast)
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Marietje Schaake

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The European Court of Justice provoked considerable controversy last month when it decided that banning the wearing of headscarves in the workplace could be lawful if part of a general policy barring all religious and political symbols.

The Court, judging a case referred from Belgium, held that a ban on wearing visible signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs did not amount to direct discrimination. But a ban could amount to indirect discrimination unless such a policy could be justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim were appropriate and necessary.

Security company G4S Secure Solutions had an unwritten policy banning the wearing of all visible signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs. When a Muslim receptionist, Samira Achbita, said that she wanted to start wearing a headscarf, G4S explained that this would contravene company policy. G4S approved an amendment to the workplace regulations, to put the prohibition in writing. The policy stated “employees are prohibited, in the workplace, from wearing any visible signs of their political, philosophical or religious beliefs and/or from giving expression to any ritual arising from them.” Achbita was dismissed.

The Court held that G4S’s “position of neutrality” in its contacts with customers was a legitimate aim if it applied only to employees dealing with customers directly.

“Overblown rhetoric is not only way off the mark, but it seriously risks damaging efforts to integrate religious minorities”

The test of legitimacy and proportionality will be context-sensitive and, ultimately, for national courts to decide. What constitutes ‘reasonable’ will inevitably vary depending on the national identity of the EU member state concerned. This is reflected in the fact that G4S operates a neutral clothing policy only in Belgium, which has a deep-rooted custom of neutrality. But from a British perspective, the recent ruling will change nothing. As a spokesperson for G4S in the United Kingdom, where the company has its global headquarters, said: “We work hard to create an inclusive environment for our employees in all countries where we operate. The recent opinion issued by the advocate-general in a case in Belgium will not affect our UK business.”

This is because the court’s opinion simply mirrors existing British equality and anti-discrimination law, which protects diversity and promotes social cohesion by offering the same level of protection of religious minorities as anyone else. Such laws protect the rights of individuals to manifest their religion or belief, but clearly there is sometimes a balance to be struck. The right to manifest a religious belief is not absolute. The European Court of Justice ruling simply reflects this.

The reactions of press and social media to the judgment were perhaps more problematic than the judgment itself. The ruling was seized upon by both the far-right and the regressive left to further their narratives. Judicious analysis made way for clickbait sensationalism. Headlines around Europe suggested that employers now had a free reign to prohibit headscarves and other items of faith.

The actual ruling was far more nuanced than this, but that didn’t stop those peddling victimhood from claiming that the ruling represented the enshrining of ‘Islamophobia’ into law. One British commentator went as far as to claim that the ruling was a clear sign that “Islam and Muslims are no longer welcome in Europe”.

Overblown rhetoric such as this is not only way off the mark, but it seriously risks damaging efforts to integrate religious minorities by promulgating a false and divisive narrative. Such commentators also fail to recognise the many efforts that have been made to integrate religious communities. As long ago as 2001, London’s Metropolitan Police Service accommodated the hijab as an optional part of the force’s official uniform, and many other police forces have since done the same.

“A secular state that is fair to all its citizens is the best model for guaranteeing freedom of religion and belief”

Concerns about the potential harm that restrictions on religious clothing could inflict on integration of religious minorities are valid. It is in nobody’s interest – other than hard-line Islamist clerics – to further marginalise and push Muslim women out of public life. But that doesn’t mean that liberal Western democracies must sacrifice principles they hold dear to accommodate every religious demand.

Islam has many faces, and social cohesion will not be best served by capitulating to demands from interpretations of Islam that care nothing for liberal pluralism.

The case concerned the Muslim headscarf specifically, but the principle applies to the wearing of any form of religious clothing. There are clearly circumstances where it will be both reasonable and appropriate for businesses to restrict the wearing of the full Islamic face veil. This judgment allows for that. But there is however nothing in the ruling that should worry religious minorities or embolden the far-right.

The judgment simply acknowledges that there may be circumstances where a business may wish to place restrictions on employees manifesting their beliefs in the workplace, and doing so may be legal, provided that workplace clothing rules are applied equally across the board, and that the company’s actions are fair and reasonable. This is a high barrier.

A secular state that is fair to all its citizens – a state based around common citizenship rather than religious identities – is the best model for promoting social cohesion and guaranteeing freedom of religion and belief. Such states should be open to plurality, but at the same time willing to defend their principles in the face of Islamic exceptionalism.

IMAGE CREDIT: rrodrickbeiler/Bigstock

The post Headscarf ruling reminds us that religious freedom is not absolute appeared first on Europe’s World.

Environment MEPs put forward a number of possible measures to cut the EU 88 million tonnes per year food waste by half by 2030 on Tuesday. MEPs called on the European Commission to lift existing restrictions on food donations and stressed a solution is needed for the confusion created for many consumers by the “best before” and “use by” labelling.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Environment MEPs put forward a number of possible measures to cut the EU 88 million tonnes per year food waste by half by 2030 on Tuesday. MEPs called on the European Commission to lift existing restrictions on food donations and stressed a solution is needed for the confusion created for many consumers by the “best before” and “use by” labelling.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 313 - Draft report Towards EU strategy for international cultural relations
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Culture and Education

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The Maltese Presidency today struck a provisional deal with the European Parliament on the participation of the EU in a partnership to develop innovative solutions for sustainable water provision and management and food production in the Mediterranean region. The initiative, known as PRIMA (Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area), will pool the know-how and financial resources of the EU and participating states. The partnership currently involves nine member states: Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal; and six non-EU countries: Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia. 

The EU's participation will include a contribution of  €220 million from its Framework Programme for research and innovation, the "Horizon 2020" Programme. 

"The PRIMA partnership will help improve the health and livelihoods of those living in the Mediterranean region. It is also expected to encourage economic growth and stability in the longer-term," said Chris Agius, the Maltese Parliamentary Secretary. "Today's agreement in just one trilogue meeting means that PRIMA can be operational in early 2018, as planned." 

The presidency will submit the outcome of the talks for approval by member states in the coming  weeks.

Length of video : 40'
You may manually download this video in WMV (481Mb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/5d154574-1e8b-11e7-aae3-bc764e092fac_37.18_thumb_169_1491897957_1491897956_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The 2017 G7 Foreign Ministers' Meeting is held on April 10 and 11, 2017 in Lucca, Italy.

Download this video here.

To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, register for a free FT account here and then sign up here.

Host Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish prime minister, proudly tweeted the menu shortly after lunchtime, describing it as an “homage to Spanish cuisine”: artichokes with Spanish ham, sea bass cooked in Galician wine with leeks, followed by caramelised torrijas (a version of French toast) with ice cream. The white wine was a bone-dry Albariño, the red came from Rioja.

Read more

Length of video : 149'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.7Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP